Thoughts on Life, Love, Politics, Hypocrisy and Coming Out in Mid-Life

Sunday, May 08, 2016

Will Donald Trump Hand the Senate to Elizabeth Warren?

Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren share many views and both now tend to define Democrat populism. Of the two, I see Warren as the more genuine and with more staying power and less driven by ego. I'm sorry, but with Sanders, too much of the story is about him. Now, should fears that Donald Trump will lead the GOP to a rout in November prove true, a lengthy piece in Politico considers how Warren could be poised to take charge of the U. S., Senate, something that would be a true case of karma being a bitch for the Republicans who blocked her confirmation to head the CFPB. Here are some article highlights which I hope prove to be accurate:

In a normal year, the
Senate would be likely to stay in Republican hands. But now that Trump has
secured the nomination, the prospect of a powerful anti-Trump turnout puts as
many as a dozen Republican-held seats in play—with the possibility of electing
as many as eight new female senators to join the 12 Democratic women who will
return in 2017. That would give us a new Senate with a Democratic majority, a
historically large bloc of women—as many as 20 on the Democratic side—and one
person ready to lead them. In short, Trump could end up making Warren one of
the most powerful people in the Capitol.

It would be quite a set
of ironies to cap off this strange national election: While Republicans decide
which cliff to leap off, Trump’s nomination could unwittingly usher into power
a small army of liberal women, following Warren into battle against wealthy
money men like himself. And the gate-crasher who ran for Senate in 2012 because
Senate Republicans wouldn’t let her run the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau could soon be pulling the strings of the Senate Democrats—and bossing
around the very Republicans who blocked her.

For Democrats soured by Republican obstructionism during Obama’s eight years in
office, the stakes couldn’t be higher. “Having the majority is critical. An
example right now is what is happening to Merrick Garland,” Warren says. “The
difference between majority and minority is being able to hold hearings and
call votes.”

Of course, if Democrats
take the Senate, it’ll be a Senate majority forged in Warren’s image. “A lot of
groundwork is being laid in 2015 and 2016 for an Elizabeth Warren-style agenda
to be put on the floor in 2017, if we have a Senate majority,” says Adam Green,
co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee.

In other words, it’s
Warren’s Senate for the taking—but first she needs to pay for it.It’s no secret that Warren is now the go-to banker for Democratsin need of
campaign cash.. . . But the amounts she can give directly pale next
to what she can raise. (Direct donations aside, the PAC is primarily to cover
costs for her travel to speak at fundraisers.) And the scary thing is, Warren’s
influence and name recognition are so powerful that she doesn’t even need to
get on a plane to get the money flowing. She just needs to hit send.

Flipping a Senate majority, from its current 46-54 deficit, has been considered
a crapshoot. But a Trump nomination could slide a whole host of contests into
Democratic hands. As the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia
depicted last month, a “Trumpmare” scenario would push Florida, Nevada, New
Hampshire and Pennsylvania Senate races from “Tossup” or “Lean Republican” to
“Lean Democrat.” It’s easy to see why: Recent polls show Clinton beating Trump
by 15 points in Pennsylvania and 19 points in New Hampshire. It’s hard to
imagine that kind of lopsided drubbing wouldn’t affect the Senate races there.

That alone would get
Democrats a 51-seat majority. But the Trumpmare map also puts Arizona, Indiana,
Iowa, Missouri, North Carolina and Ohio contests in play—a potential rout for
the blue team. And even without Trump, the University of Virginia’s analysis
throws six Senate race “Crystal Ball” ratings in the direction of Democrats.
Other experts have made similar adjustments.

That’s eight Democratic women seeking to join the 12 who will be returning to
the Senate in 2017—a potentially game-changing shift even within the Democrats’
Caucus, where a little less than a third are women. Warren’s transformation of
the Senate could usher in not only a majority, but a particularly Warren-esque
revolution: Democratic, female and progressive.

Asked if she sees
herself as a potential leader of Democratic women in the Senate, Warren demurs
but does not deny. . . . . Warren’s only real rival in terms of national
following would be Sanders, whose historic presidential run has built a loyal
following outside of Washington. But, as Barney Frank has made abundantly clear
in recent public tirades, Sanders’ progressive Capitol colleagues have always
looked at him as a party of one, not a leader or even a team player. He became
a Democrat only last year, and has publicly conceded that he did so only for
self-interest; he continues to list himself as an Independent for Senate
business. And Sanders isn’t doing himself any favors with them by criticizing
what he calls a “rigged” nominating system of superdelegates—which includes all
Democratic senators. His failure to help raise money for down-ballot Democrats
hasn’t helped either.

“She’s one of the most mission-driven politicians I’ve ever worked with, says
Doug Rubin, top strategist for Warren’s 2012 campaign, who says he speaks with
Warren regularly. “It always starts with driving her agenda: income inequality
and rebuilding the middle class.”

What she couldn’t have
known was how perfectly the GOP might play into her plans. If Trump’s numbers
don’t improve, the presidential contest could quickly become a foregone
conclusion—pushing attention further toward the action in the Senate races. And, quite possibly,
toward making Elizabeth Warren the new Queen of the Capitol.

1 comment:

Apart from being in Massachusetts, I for one would most assuredly prefer Elizabeth Warren to Chuck Schumer as Senate Majority Leader, especially given the wretched repeat performance of the Democratic senatorial misleadership in the past primaries.

In Pennsylvania, the Democratic midleadership once again has decided to support a Republicant against a solid supporter of the bona fide Democratic supporter of Obamacare, former Cong. Joe Sestak. (Why would anybody want to vote for an inexperienced political hack against a Senator who has now had the chance to consolidate his position?

And in Florida, Harry Reid and his party leadership cronies are actively supporting former Republican Patrick Murphy against Rep. Alan Grayson, who famously delineated the Republicant health care program -- "Don't get sick. And if you do, die quickly."

Nobody in their right mind should give a PENNY to any of the official Democratic party committees.

Translate This Page

Contact Me to Order Title Work

LGBT Legal Services

About Me

Out gay attorney in a committed relationship; formerly married and father of three wonderful children; sometime activist and political/news junkie; survived coming out in mid-life and hope to share my experiences and reflections with others.
In the career/professional realm, I am affiliated with Caplan & Associates PC where I practice in the areas of real estate, estate planning (Wills, Trusts, Advanced Medical Directives, Financial Powers of Attorney, Durable Medical Powers of Attorney); business law and commercial transactions; formation of corporations and limited liability companies and legal services to the gay, lesbian and transgender community, including birth certificate amendment.

Disclaimer on Opinions and Content

This Blog contains content that may be innapropriate for readers under the legal age of 18. IF YOU ARE UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE, PLEASE LEAVE NOW. Thank you

This is an opinion and commentary blog and the opinions and contents of this Blog - including opinions expressed concerning opponents of LGBT equality - are the opinions only of the individual blogger and should not be attributed to any other individuals or to any organization of which the blogger is a past or current member.

Followers

Michael-in-Norfolk disclaims any and all responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, completeness, legality, reliability, operability, or availability of information or material displayed on this site and does not claim credit for any images or articles featured on this site, unless otherwise noted. All visual content is copyrighted to it's respectful owners. Information on this site may contain errors or inaccuracies, and Michael-in-Norfolk does not make warranty as to the correctness or reliability of the site's content. If you own rights to any of the images or articles, and do not wish them to appear on this site, please contact Michael-in-Norfolk via e-mail and they will be promptly removed. Michael-in-Norfolk contains links to other Internet sites. These links are provided solely as a convenience and are not endorsements of any products or services in such sites, and no information or content in such site has been endorsed or approved by this blog.